If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: Change Brady to a charity, or give it away for free.

That makes no difference. He is endorsing the incremental removal of a civil right.

Would you be in favor of limiting voting? How about limiting freedom of speech? The right to a fair trial? Privacy rights? They are all civil rights.

Again, he can think whatever he wants. It is his choice to believe anything. He could come out tomorrow and say that the experiment to grant 18 yr olds has failed. They only care about their iphones, and twitter and following the latest celebrity doings blindly without thought. Raise the voting age to 21. It is not like I am doing away with voting. I am just restricting it further! And that would be his right to say such under the first amendment.

I would be against that as well. And if he was donating the proceeds to an organization that wanted to restrict the voting rights of millions of Americans, I would choose to no longer support him either, especially if he was at the same time saying..."Hey, I am just trying to open up a dialog here"

What I hear you saying is that you believe that he is contradicting himself in asking for debate on the subject because he chose an organization that advocates for more sensible gun laws to donate his share of the proceeds. As I see it, the only thing that will make you happy is for him to see things exactly as you do. You are obviously stuck on the fact that he supports the Brady Campaign which is advocating for more sensible gun laws, not banning them outright, and in your opinion you also see that as being a block to having any discussion in spite of the fact that there are many who have been able to do just that. I would suggest that it is you who has the problem having a dialog or to consider anything other than what you perceive as your right to own any gun that you choose. That IMO is the truth underneath all the rhetoric about erosion of Second Amendment rights. Personally, I believe that allowing people to have any gun they choose violates my rights to personal safety.

Re: Change Brady to a charity, or give it away for free.

give me one plausible scenario just how that's gonna take place, just one.

Originally Posted by jay1799

Thanks.

Trust me, it was not an easy decision, and not one I made lightly. It is also why it took me a few days to formalize my thoughts and write the post that I did.

But, when someone not only wants my civil rights violated, but is actively supporting an organization whose sole goal is to violate the civil rights of tens of millions of Americans and their families...then I have to make a Stand against it.

One can disagree that the right of self-defense is a basic civil right, but I would simply disagree with that person; and no one should be infringing upon my choice as to the best way to protect myself, my property, and my family.

My own and my families safety and security are just as important to me, as I am sure are Mr. Kings. I would never expect to tell him that whatever safety and security measures he chooses to utilize are improper, as long as he personally is not harming others. He should grant me, and the tens of millions of legal American gun owners that same courtesy.

I may have drifted off course a bit in this post, however the ultimate statement is the same. The support of an organization whose main goal is to disarm millions of Americans by slowing eroding away a Constitutionally protected right, until it is no longer a right at all...goes against anything I believe in. I implore Mr. King to reconsider this decision.

And I implore you to stop being a freakin' tool, or a fool full of stool, butt then to be completely fair & honest, which, I really wouldn't know.
Oh and this kinda crap right here, "One can disagree that the right of self-defense is a basic civil right", that you seem to have quite fondness for, is just flat out disingenuous obfuscating at it's absolute bullsh!tiest, and I would say mega huge kudos & gianormous props for that oh yes I would I would I most certainly would, well I would that is, if it was at all original and had even a miniscule modicum of merit, but we both know it sure as hell doesn't, don't we?
Never did Toolbox, I've been hearing the same garbage for decades now.
See I live in gun country, guns everywhere, better than a pocket full o' ducats & a fist full of doubloons, why they don't even come in calibers they come in denominations here in The Mighty BlueGrass, got one grocery store and five gun shops within a ten mile radius of my front door, I've traded & dealt in firearms, most everyone I know has at one time or another, bulletin boards in the hardware, grocery and feed store are full of 'em (especially around Christmas ho ho 'ho), so don't confuse me with an urban high rise liberal east coaster, or a tofu and seaweed snackin' socialist west coaster, or whatever those stupid geographic labels are supposed to be about, nah, I'm a middleville Hillbilly that couldn't give one good hoot about what guns you own or how many, honest, I personally could care less if you owned an aircraft carrier with it's own fighter wing attachment, can ya hear me now???
Yeah I've heard the your artificially nasty flavored fear mongering before, ad nauseum since the mass produced Saturday Night Special flooded our nations streets back in 70's and became quite famous, before you I'd bet my last doobie..oh yeah babes, if ya knew me at all, that would let ya know I'm quite serious.

Even these good ol' southern redneck boys from back in the hey day beginnings of cheaply made, mass produced, mostly foreign made, high profit margin, stupid ignorant moronic tools of senseless death, they knew the real deal of what was, and still is going on, so your either a player or a sucker, either or, still a bad actor in a lousy play, and yeah, that's my opinion.

Re: Change Brady to a charity, or give it away for free.

Originally Posted by Moderator

What I hear you saying is that you believe that he is contradicting himself in asking for debate on the subject because he chose an organization that advocates for more sensible gun laws to donate his share of the proceeds. As I see it, the only thing that will make you happy is for him to see things exactly as you do. You are obviously stuck on the fact that he supports the Brady Campaign which is advocating for more sensible gun laws, not banning them outright, and in your opinion you also see that as being a block to having any discussion in spite of the fact that there are many who have been able to do just that. I would suggest that it is you who has the problem having a dialog or to consider anything other than what you perceive as your right to own any gun that you choose. That IMO is the truth underneath all the rhetoric about erosion of Second Amendment rights. Personally, I believe that allowing people to have any gun they choose violates my rights to personal safety.

And I could make the same argument against hate speech, and why it should be a violation of law to say horrible things that can lead to deranged individuals committing horrible acts. However, hate speech, is a protected right in this country. It falls under a protected civil right.

Just because someone owns an AR15 or an AK47 with a 30 round magazine, does not mean they are going to go out and shoot a bunch of people, thus violating your right to personal safety. Millions of Americans own such type firearms. MILLIONS. How many deaths are attributed to such firearms every year? Less than 500 the last time I looked. Less than a baseball bat.

And yes, I should be able to choose what type of firearm works best for me and my family when defending ourselves. I am Pro-choice in this matter. Choices are always better. I am not trying to infringe on your choice. That is what you are doing.

However, I can have a discussion on the subject all you want. I was trying to keep the discussion roughly on the topic of the thread. ie, supporting a charity and not supporting a political lobbying group. Especially one that wants to violate the civil rights of millions of Americans.

Re: Change Brady to a charity, or give it away for free.

Re: Change Brady to a charity, or give it away for free.

Originally Posted by PatInTheHat

Oh and this kinda crap right here, "One can disagree that the right of self-defense is a basic civil right", that you seem to have quite fondness for, is just flat out disingenuous obfuscating at it's absolute bullsh!tiest, and I would say mega huge kudos & gianormous props for that oh yes I would I would I most certainly would, well I would that is, if it was at all original and had even a miniscule modicum of merit, but we both know it sure as hell doesn't, don't we?
.

It is quite difficult to actually comprehend anything that you type Pat. But, I assume that you disagree that self defense and even gun ownership are civil rights?

I am open for that discussion if you are, but I doubt that you would be a willing participant in such a debate, nor one that actually debates clearly.

However, I will start off with the easiest way to argue it. The US Supreme Court has ruled in Heller vs DC that armed self defense is a right of all Americans. Furthermore, the right of armed self defense was incorporated to the states under the 14 Amendment in Mcdonald vs Chicago, which is the route ALL civil rights in this country have been applied to states.

If you think that the right of armed self defense is not a civil right, you simply have not been following supreme court case law in the last 5 years or so. You can disagree with it if you want, but it is...the law of this land. It would be like arguing for segregation after Brown vs the Board of Eduction.

Originally Posted by Moderator

In your opinion which is not shared by all Americans.

And desegregation was not an opinion shared by all Americans either. It did not make it any less of a civil right, guaranteed under The Constitution, and upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States, and incorporated to all states under the 14th Amendment...just like armed self defense.

Re: Change Brady to a charity, or give it away for free.

Nor was the right for women to vote and many other amendments but those are not issues that we are talking about. We are talking about gun control and the bans that are being suggested are not new ones. It's been done before.

You might want to read the whole decision of the Supreme Court:

On pp. 54 and 55, the majority opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, states: "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited..." It is "... not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."
"Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
"We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time". We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.'"
The court even recognizes a long-standing judicial precedent "... to consider... prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons."

Re: Change Brady to a charity, or give it away for free.

Originally Posted by Moderator

Nor was the right for women to vote and many other amendments but those are not issues that we are talking about. We are talking about gun control and the bans that are being suggested are not new ones. It's been done before.

You might want to read the whole decision of the Supreme Court:

On pp. 54 and 55, the majority opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, states: "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited..." It is "... not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."
"Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
"We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time". We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.'"
The court even recognizes a long-standing judicial precedent "... to consider... prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons."

Sure, the bans were done before. They were also done beore Heller or Mcdonald were ruled on. And they also were proven to be ineffective in preventing crime or lowering mass shootings. Remember, Columbine happened during the last 'AWB'.

As far as Scalia's opinion in Heller, it supports my case much more than yours. AR-15's are one of the most common rifles in use at this time. Semi auto handguns are most certainly the absolute most common firearm in use at this time. There is nothing 'unusual' to these types of firearms, it is nothing more than a semi automatic rifle...and the most important part that most anti-gunners overlook when they quote heller is the part I bolded.

And no one is saying that someone that has already lost their civil rights...ie, felons or those deemed mentally insane...should someone get their civil rights back. I am in full support of that.

Lastly, a firearm is a firearm. Some hold more, some hold less, some use a magazine, some dont. The only thing that really makes one more dangerous than the other...is the intent of the person holding it.

However, I concede that no one(me nor you) really has any clue how SCOTUS would rule in some future case. Really, all we do know, is that armed self defense is a basic civil right in this country...affirmed and incorporated by The Supreme Court of the United States.

So why do you want to infringe on my civil rights? I have done nothing wrong. If you want to infringe on someone's civil rights, go after the criminals....they are the bad guys. Not me.

Re: Change Brady to a charity, or give it away for free.

Originally Posted by jay1799

That makes no difference. He is endorsing the incremental removal of a civil right.

Would you be in favor of limiting voting?

There are indeed limitations to voting, which differ from area to area. Some of those have withstood court challenge; some have not. That is how US law works. And of course no matter HOW involved and passionate you might be at the age of 17, you are not allowed to express that on a ballot.

How about limiting freedom of speech?

You mean like restricting your ability to commit libel or slander? The criminalizing of inciting panic in a public place? The restriction of freedom of expression to certain venues? The determination that some things, in fact, are obscene from a legal standpoint? The criminalization of child pornography?

The right to a fair trial?

Unless you're in Gitmo. Or Texas.

Privacy rights?

You mean those things you pretty much have none of at work?

They are all civil rights.

And they all, each and every one, down to the very last, have limitations.

The "no restrictions should be allowed" argument is demonstrably, clearly, plainly without merit. Your fist, my nose. My fist, your nose. That's how it works. That's how it has always worked.

Re: Change Brady to a charity, or give it away for free.

Originally Posted by Moderator

You might want to read the whole decision of the Supreme Court:

On pp. 54 and 55, the majority opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, states: "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited..." It is "... not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."
"Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
"We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time". We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.'"
The court even recognizes a long-standing judicial precedent "... to consider... prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons."

Isn’t the main problem in the Miller case was that by the time SCOTUS heard the case, Miller was dead and nobody argued his side?

And I might be wrong, but when it comes to semi-automatic rifles, I believe no case involving them has yet reached the US Supreme Court, so therefore the issue remains unresolved, and will remain unresolved until a law restricting once again comes into play and it is challenged all the way up to the SCOTUS.

We keep hearing nobody wants to take away your guns. But I believe the recent pattern of history dictates differently. A century ago there were very few laws at all regarding guns. Up until the mid-1930’s anyone could order a Thompson submachine gun from the Sears catalogue for about $200. Then there were laws restricting certain types of weapon. Then cam laws against importation and manufacturing. Then came laws restricting who could own them. Then we get laws restricting where you could carry them. Then came laws involving background checks. Anyone see a pattern here? Perhaps this is the time to finally take a stand against the constant assault against the second amendment.

Chief Justice Kozinski of the 9th Circuit (and offspring of holocaust survivors) dissenting in a case in 2003, wrote: "My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed-where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once."

Re: Change Brady to a charity, or give it away for free.

I may be straying from the original intent of this thread but I don't know where else to post this, and I wanted to share an observation.

When ever Steve's personal beliefs outrage the rabid right I get this little surge of angry people selling their Stephen King books to the store where I work. Sometimes, but rarely we get absolutely beautiful, highly desirable, nearly complete collections of his work. (Obviously I work in a used bookstore).
In a greedy ba$tard kind of way I am THRILLED when Steve makes with the home truths, because after the angry surge comes the hungry influx of 3 times as many people who want to buy his books, either for the first time or to start reading his stories again.

Another aside and as a matter of fact, I hooked a fella up with a full set of The Dark Tower paperbacks Monday. He said he had forgotten how good his books were until he heard some "clown" at work talking ****e about King's personal beliefs.
He told me he started the stories several years back and thought it was high time he finished them. He said he wanted the whole set because he wanted to start the whole journey all over from the beginning. I was happy to help him do that.
Ka being a wheel at work here, it's a beautiful thing.